NHL Lockout XXIV: Oi! Get your filthy hands off my desert!

I'm surprised people view this as a "clownfest". This is the essence of negotiating. It's akin to a war.

Fehr is a master negotiator. So is Bettman. In fact, the way I view this is that Bettman attempted to trap Fehr but couldn't do it all the way, which frustrated Gary. Fehr having a presser prior to the NHL's rejection (expected IMO) saved his skin IMO. It was a very cunning maneuver on his part. He painted optimism to show his constituents that he's willing to deal, while Bettman and the NHL did everything they could to paint him doing otherwise.

Something you said about Fehr reminded me of Musashi (geek out a bit here). Miyamoto Musashi would show up to duels late on purpose. He would taunt but never get angered. There was no frustration... which in turn incited frustration. Lastly, he would spread innuendo long prior to his actual duels so as to "set the table" and then totally change the game at the last minute, defying expectations. Fehr is doing all of this --> And it's getting to the owners. They are very weary of him now. So much so that they will try to get deals done in his absence - and make those deals contingent on is prolonged absence (as Hainsey intimated).

Fehr is going to push the NHL to the brink (mid January). And if the NHL is stupid enough to go past that stage without budging on contract limits, they're in for world of hurt beyond that point... When the PA decertifies.

So Fehr was brought in to do nothing and let the PA decertify? What a leader. Come here, play a few games, act like an idiot then let us commit career suicide by dercertifying and trying to sue our bosses. If they win the lawsuits they might ruin the NHL and therefore their jobs, if they lose, which is more likely, the NHL would have them in a noose and the NHL would offer 35% HRR at best.

For one season yes, but after that point it depends on how long the decertification process takes. The absolute worst case is to have decertification extend on into the next season while both parties are unwilling to settle.

Fehr has to gauge when the "actual" drop dead date is. If he can do that, he can leverage his position to try and extract that last little bit from the owners (pushing contract limits from 5 years to 7 years - which essentially closes the loophole to have BDCs). That's the final thing he needs before he signs off IMO.

I thought one of the 3 'die-on-this-hill' issues was variance? 15% or something like that? And wouldn't that effectively eliminate BDCs?

So Fehr was brought in to do nothing and let the PA decertify? What a leader. Come here, play a few games, act like an idiot then let us commit career suicide by dercertifying and trying to sue our bosses. If they win the lawsuits they might ruin the NHL and therefore their jobs, if they lose, which is more likely, the NHL would have them in a noose and the NHL would offer 35% HRR at best.

No wonder he is working for free, he isn't actually doing anything.

It's "easy" to paint one leader at fault, or the other. This is a negotiation involving timelines and tactics. Both leaders are utilizing these elements to get the best deal. Like I said, Fehr will wait until the NHL cancels the season and then decertify, not before. He'll wait until the owners drop dead date (mid January) before accepting the owner's "best" offer at that time. It seems only logical.

No one knows what decertification actually entails because no one knows how each judge in the process will rule, until it gets there. Bottom line, it's the only weapon the players have to counter act the inherent weaknesses involved in collective bargaining. The owners can essentially restrict player capability every time out, every time they negotiate. Decertifying is the only way to counter-act that steady decline.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socratic Method Man

I thought one of the 3 'die-on-this-hill' issues was variance? 15% or something like that? And wouldn't that effectively eliminate BDCs?

I'm not sure about that, I though it was only contract limits. Anyways, both of these combine to eliminate BDCs. If you restrict the total number of years, and there are no restrictions on variance, deals will be heavily front-loaded. Thereby putting more pressure on owners to pay more now. If the variance is also restricted... well then the CBA is essentially idiot-proofed for the owners. Something they desperately want after shooting themselves in the foot in the last CBA.

For one season yes, but after that point it depends on how long the decertification process takes. The absolute worst case is to have decertification extend on into the next season while both parties are unwilling to settle.

Fehr has to gauge when the "actual" drop dead date is. If he can do that, he can leverage his position to try and extract that last little bit from the owners (pushing contract limits from 5 years to 7 years - which essentially closes the loophole to have BDCs). That's the final thing he needs before he signs off IMO.

First off the PA is much more likely to try a disclaimer of interest as opposed to decertification. They only need the support of a third of the union to disclaim interest and then they can reform the Union right away. Decertification requires a majority vote, takes 90 days and the Union can not reform for a period of one year.

Second either way it will take about 3 years in court for the players to win. It could be much shorter for the owners to win because I am sure they will take the same approach the NBA did and try to have all the contracts voided. They will argue that the contracts do not work without a CBA. If the owners win this it is basically over for the players.

First off the PA is much more likely to try a disclaimer of interest as opposed to decertification. They only need the support of a third of the union to disclaim interest and then they can reform the Union right away. Decertification requires a majority vote, takes 90 days and the Union can not reform for a period of one year.

Second either way it will take about 3 years in court for the players to win. It could be much shorter for the owners to win because I am sure they will take the same approach the NBA did and try to have all the contracts voided. They will argue that the contracts do not work without a CBA. If the owners win this it is basically over for the players.

Yes, I'm aware that the disclaimer will be tried first. Decertification will only seriously be considered if/when the season is cancelled. Even if the union cannot re-form in one year. The idea being that the NHL will settle long before the year limit is reached.

Fehr won't decertify unless he thinks he has a shot at winning. Players won't do it unless they are willing to risk it all. That's the only time it happens, and that's why it's being held back... for now. If by chance the owners "win", you will get contracts voided, but then you're still faced with a free market for players afterwards - and that's exactly what Fehr wants in the end: No limitations, No cap. So while the players take the massive hit _if_ they lose, they stand to gain much, much more moving forward.

Then they'll have every owner in the league falling over themselves to make deals for talent. A free market.

The issue regarding the length of the CBA is a throw away. Fehr is keeping it on the table solely to maintain a bargaining chip. The real issue is contract length, which equates to "job security" from the players perspective and "back diving" from the owners perspective. But, it is also an issue that impacts a relatively small number of players.

We know that the owners are willing to go to 7 years, since their own proposal includes that period for a team resigning it's own player. We also know that,as a practical matter, allowing a reasonable percentage variance between the highest and lowest year of a players contract ends the problem of back diving if the maximum contract length is 7 years.

My guess is that even now the players and owners are having back channel communications trying to find a way to bridge the gap. Both sides through their respective surrogates are sending messages through the press how "close" they are and how "confused" they are by the other sides refusal to agree as to contract and CBA length.

The issue regarding the length of the CBA is a throw away. Fehr is keeping it on the table solely to maintain a bargaining chip. The real issue is contract length, which equates to "job security" from the players perspective and "back diving" from the owners perspective. But, it is also an issue that impacts a relatively small number of players.

We know that the owners are willing to go to 7 years, since their own proposal includes that period for a team resigning it's own player. We also know that,as a practical matter, allowing a reasonable percentage variance between the highest and lowest year of a players contract ends the problem of back diving if the maximum contract length is 7 years.

My guess is that even now the players and owners are having back channel communications trying to find a way to bridge the gap. Both sides through their respective surrogates are sending messages through the press how "close" they are and how "confused" they are by the other sides refusal to agree as to contract and CBA length.

I expect a deal by January 1 at the latest.

Pretty much agreed, but I expect a deal in mid January.

The key thing to me is pushing past December while maintaining that 300m in make whole. If the owners ever take that off the table, this season is trouble. Because if they do that, the players won't care if they get 7/8 years max contract lengths.

Backes made a good point about limiting contract lengths: It essentially puts pressures on owners to pay out to their high end guys, leaving little to fill out the roster. While this system works in the NBA, hockey is more of a team game, so it's likely to impact the depth on rosters indirectly.

7 years will be what they agree upon IMO, for all UFAs (in house or out). Once that's done, I too feel we'll have a season.

[QUOTE=SidTheKid8787;56364033]Be careful what you wish for(or believe what will happen).
We're talking about Donald Fehr and Gary Bettman here and Fehr's just gettin' started folks.[/QUOTE]

One can only hope he actually starts negotiating. Because to date all he's done is made proposals that he knew wouldn't fly. He doesn't give a crap about the NHL. He doesn't give a crap about the future of the game. He doesn't really give a crap about the players as far as I'm concerned. And I base that on a couple of player quotes indicating they didn't think they'd be in this position by now. Fehr has slowly brainwashed them but only for one reason - to protect his legacy.

So is Mackenzie right that the 5 year effects essentially 40 players?
out of 700?

Morganti said it well
This is the anthill they're dying on?

I think the player argument goes that as salaries for the star players go up (they always do in UFA bidding) since contracts are limited to 5 years, cap hits will go way up. Therefore there will not be as much money under the cap to pay the roll players.

If I were the NHL I'd go to 6 year contracts, 8 years for FA's signing for their own team. Then they are kind of compromising with the PA who also wanted 8 years. Done deal.

The owners care about contract lengths (or at least Bettman does) because of the Weber thing: teams like Nashville being forced to either give stars 14-year-contracts or lose them might very well sink them.

On the other hand Dave Backes came out and said this recently about contract terms:

Quote:

Backes explained: ďIf (Sidney) Crosby is an unrestricted free agent and signs a five-year deal for $8-12 million (per year), then everyone is slotted under there. If Crosby gets five years, Iím lucky if I get two. If heís making $12 million and doesnít take term to have security in exchange for lower numbers at the end, then his salary-cap hit is that high number and you end up with a basketball system where you have LeBron (James), (Dwyane) Wade and (Chris Bosh) making all the money. Hockey is not like that. You canít play five guys the whole game.Ē

which I think is at least a valid fear that the owners should have to address. If they can't be smart enough not to kick the can down the road with 14 year contracts, who knows, maybe we'll see someone spending half their cap on three players.

First, there would be more than one lawsuit involved.
Second, it would be an anti-trust lawsuit by the PA.
Even if there was just one lawsuit, there is no proof that the PA would lose it. They would likely lose an injunction (to get the league to immediately halt the lockout), but that's not losing the lawsuit.

On the other hand Dave Backes came out and said this recently about contract terms:

Quote:

Backes explained: ďIf (Sidney) Crosby is an unrestricted free agent and signs a five-year deal for $8-12 million (per year), then everyone is slotted under there. If Crosby gets five years, Iím lucky if I get two. If heís making $12 million and doesnít take term to have security in exchange for lower numbers at the end, then his salary-cap hit is that high number and you end up with a basketball system where you have LeBron (James), (Dwyane) Wade and (Chris Bosh) making all the money. Hockey is not like that. You canít play five guys the whole game.Ē

Which is EXACTLY why that wouldn't happen, Backes....

Goodluck giving Crosby 10-12 million per year on a 5 year deal and making the playoffs.

Could GMs and teams do that? Sure.. but it's suicide. The short term gain you'd get from jersey sales and the like would be peanuts compared to the money lost when your team is now a bottom feeder for the next 5 years.

GMs and agents will now have to work together more closely to figure out what's a fair salary for a top end player without gimping the team he's on or joining.

This isn't basketball... having a couple star players will not make you a Stanley Cup favorite. You can't compare the two at all.

The owners care about contract lengths (or at least Bettman does) because of the Weber thing: teams like Nashville being forced to either give stars 14-year-contracts or lose them might very well sink them.

On the other hand Dave Backes came out and said this recently about contract terms:

which I think is at least a valid fear that the owners should have to address. If they can't be smart enough not to kick the can down the road with 14 year contracts, who knows, maybe we'll see someone spending half their cap on three players.

In regards to the clownfest that was yesterday, both parties are at fault here.

First, it's Fehr, constantly showing up late, presenting the same offer, starting with de-liked BS proposals. Brainwashing his players into thinking that they're going to get a better deal if they wait it out. It wasn't a coincidence that as soon as Fehr entered the room again, the train derailed, and everything spun out of control.

Then yesterday happens. I cannot fathom how you can possibly know that A is only going to happen if you agree to B, you don't agree to B, and then you go and tell the media on national television that A has been solved. Where did B go? Oh right, you just basically lied to the media, and to hockey fans, who provide your players with their money.

As for Bettman, Daly, and the owners, they are no less at fault here. The first proposal was a joke. It was waste of time. I still don't know what they were expected when they tabled that joke. I'm not going to use the old excuse of "Why don't you honor the contracts you signed?" because this is a sports CBA, and these regular things don't apply here.

And I understand that Fehr acted like a clown when he said "Thanks for A, but we're not doing B." but that doesn't mean that you go ahead and act like clowns back. If this voicemail BS was true, then that's a new low. Might as well send a text. Are you a teenage boy breaking up with his girlfriend?

Bettman's presser reminded me of a little child who has just finally decided to share his toys, and then, after two minutes, throws a tantrum demanding them back. "Everything is off the table!!"

Each side has been unreasonable, and it feels like each side is run by a bunch of man-babies with deep pockets. There are people who depend on this CBA being set into action-and I don't mean the fan. I mean Joe Arenaworker, who, if lucky, has had his hours cut, only because the arena he worked in has an NBA team. And for an arena without an NBA team, Joe Arenaworker is struggling to pay his mortgage, or send his child to college.

You've gone too far. You can't cancel the season or cut off talks, or pout at each other like some 6-year-olds. Enough with the "He Said, He Said." Man up. Get into a room together, put your egos aside, get this done, and you will all be back to making money.

You need to take a 2 hour crash course in economics or just some critical thinking.

I do not mean that to be offensive in any way. But the NHL has been beyond generous. If they actually took a hard-line stance on keeping the business of the NHL good going forward they would go with 55/45 in their favor no less. Probably 60/40 would be better at this point.

the Owners need to stop the madness. Offer the players a 50/50 that drop's to 55/45 over a decade, fix revenue sharing, and all the little things. Then throw in big bonus money possibilities based on revenue so that cost certainty allows natural growth, not artificial.

Like milking so many fans for every dollar in the 5-15 or level revenue teams. With ticket prices going up and up and making Canadians pay insane money in smaller markets to "compete". It's a joke. Owners would gladly lower ticket prices big time as long as they make money or break even.

Who's profit's have gone up the last 10 years or so?

In 2005 players got 1.05 billion or so. They got 1.65-1.7 billion last year. They had their salaries on an annual basis go up by almost 700,000,000 MILLION DOLLARS BY 2011 IN TOTAL ALMOST 100 MILLION A YEAR IN INCREASED PROFIT, TAKE HOME, PAY CHECK, PROFIT(BEFORE TAXES) BUT STILL, WHAT THE HELL DO THEY HAVE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT.

How can any NHL player hate Uncle Gary's last deal that brought them that. While his owner's still lost money and more money as the player share kept increasing.

No Sir, Gary wasn't crying he was done with how stupid these players are. What other organization in the world of employee's 750 or so who gain 700 MILLION DOLLARS IN PROFITS IN 7-8 YEARS CRY WHEN YOU SAY YOU'RE SHARE IS BIT OUT OF PROPORTION WITH COST'S. SO YOU MIGHT MAKE 650 MILLION MORE THAN YOU DID 8 YEARS AGO FOR A YEAR OR TWO BUT BY BY 2014 YOU WILL BE BACK OVER THAT, BY 2018 AT A BILLION.

Yes, I'm aware that the disclaimer will be tried first. Decertification will only seriously be considered if/when the season is cancelled. Even if the union cannot re-form in one year. The idea being that the NHL will settle long before the year limit is reached.

Fehr won't decertify unless he thinks he has a shot at winning. Players won't do it unless they are willing to risk it all. That's the only time it happens, and that's why it's being held back... for now. If by chance the owners "win", you will get contracts voided, but then you're still faced with a free market for players afterwards - and that's exactly what Fehr wants in the end: No limitations, No cap. So while the players take the massive hit _if_ they lose, they stand to gain much, much more moving forward.

Then they'll have every owner in the league falling over themselves to make deals for talent. A free market.

There's far too much at risk with suing the teams in anti-trust litigation. If there's no PA every player may have to retain their own lawyer to sue. Even if they win if the owners have insulated themselves from personal damages (as most smart businessmen would do) the players may only suceed in bankrupting the individual franchises costing jobs for a lot of other people as well as themselves. Even that could take years to accomplish and I believe the last time courts paid damages to a lawsuit the type the players would try I believe it was $3.76...and that dollars not millions.

It's the minority of players who would benefit from a free market. All contracts would be retained under disclosure agreements so no player could point to someone elses contract for a benchmark value. The majority of players would not be able to negotiate a guaranteed contracts and only the Crosby's of the league would have that clause. It's unlikely the majority of teams could afford to trip all over themselves to pay outlandish salaries...we'd end up with Toronto, NYR, and Montreal buying up players for every position and a lot of smaller market teams would be in danger of folding.

Roenick Favoring the owners as well and considers himself a "player" guy as we would expect. He implies Fehr is the real problem in all of this when the players were ready to sign a deal and Fehr said to hold out for more. I am through with Fehr he needs to go, he was a horrible choice as a negotiator for this.